Bipartisan U.S. House Investigation Targets Merck and AbbVie Over Clinical Trial Safety Risks in China
N.R. Finch
The US House Select Committee on China has opened a bipartisan investigation into clinical trials run by Merck and AbbVie in China, zeroing in on trial sites in Xinjiang and military-affiliated hospitals over ethics and national-security risks, with responses due by July 17.
What exactly is the probe looking at?
The committee sent letters dated June 30 to Merck and AbbVie, demanding details on due diligence, data-protection protocols, and related standards for their China-based trials.
Two focal points stand out: Xinjiang — the letter calls it the epicenter of Beijing's alleged "genocide" against the Uyghur minority — and hospitals affiliated with the Chinese military.
This means → the probe is not chasing a specific violation. It is asking a bigger question: can US drugmakers maintain ethical and IP safeguards when running trials in these sensitive locations?
How large is their trial footprint in China?
Merck has sponsored or participated in 224 clinical studies in China since 2005 — at least 31 in Xinjiang, 40 at military-affiliated facilities.
AbbVie has sponsored or participated in over 100 Chinese clinical studies since 2007 — at least 17 sites in Xinjiang, 16 at military-affiliated facilities.
In plain terms = this is not occasional collaboration. It is nearly two decades of deep involvement at scale — and the Xinjiang and military shares are far from trivial.
Does the letter accuse them of breaking the law?
The letter states explicitly that there is "no evidence" either company engaged in illegal conduct or wrongdoing.
But it warns that conducting trials in China exposes US firms to ethical and security risks — citing documented failures in informed-consent procedures in Xinjiang and the possibility that cutting-edge biotech IP could be transferred to the Chinese military through hospital affiliations.
This means → the probe is framed as a risk alert, not a prosecution — lay out the exposure first, then see how the companies respond.
How have the parties responded?
Merck said patient safety and ethical integrity are priorities for its clinical programs and that it follows all global guidelines.
AbbVie declined to comment.
The Chinese embassy in Washington called the committee's action "completely without credibility" and opposed politicizing trade and technology issues.
Why launch this probe now?
Research data show the US share of global early-stage drug development fell from 48% in 2015 to roughly 37% in 2024, while China's share rose from 8% to over 32% in the same period.
The letter attributes the shift to "regulatory reforms, state subsidies, and questionable ethical standards."
This reflects a deeper anxiety: China's share of global drug R&D is closing in on America's, and part of the growth is seen as driven by a lower ethical bar.
What comes after the probe — is legislation on the way?
Republican Representative John Moolenaar, who is leading the investigation, is also pushing bipartisan legislation — the Biotechnology Investment National Security Act — to add biotech to the list of technologies subject to rigorous national-security review.
The bill would cover US-to-China biotech licensing, joint ventures, and equity investments.
In plain terms = if the bill advances, scrutiny would extend far beyond clinical trials — US pharma companies' investments and technology licenses in China could all face national-security review, making the stakes much larger than this probe alone.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.